It’s a few days after the fact, but I’m feeling better and thus I want to jot down my impressions of the first session of Pathfinder that I played last Monday night.
I really liked the guys who showed up, Lucus and Charlie. They’re both LPTS students and young, enthusiastic, cool guys. And they know their D&D, but were patient with me and collaborative as we talked about how to balance out the character party with a good mix of characters who wouldn’t conflict or overlap too much. I think Andrew is a great GM relative to the material, and he really likes the material and makes it better by virtue of his enthusiasm.
It was jarring for me, I can’t deny it. I’ve gotten used to playing in a very narrativist way with mostly narrativist co-players, and the obvious (although unspoken) agenda of this group leans very gamist. That’s fine with me, I expected it and I’m prepared to adjust accordingly – although I’m not sure I did a good job of adjusting this time, as I’ll mention later.
One thing I HAVE missed in all my recent PTA/Lady Blackbird hippie play has been tactical combat using minis. I don’t like it when that stuff dominates or bogs down a session – but nevertheless I DO enjoy it as an activity and in that regard I can envision having lots of fun getting out the miniatures and doing some nice tactical D&D combat stuff, and if I can keep the right approach I think I’m going to really enjoy this new Monday play group and the games they’re likely to play.
But I am very underwhelmed by the world of Pathfinder so far. It is about as standard and trite a d20/D&D setting as I’ve encountered. I realize that is probably its biggest appeal to most gamers who actually like playing D&D – especially the 3rd edition style D&D. But for all the kudos Paizo has gotten for creating this game, so far I’m not seeing the specialness, at least as concerns the setting material. Fantasy Flight’s Midnight setting and even WotC’s Eberron setting are far more innovative, interesting, and compelling, while still managing to make it possible to ‘do anything you can do with D&D3e’. On the other hand, I figure that I’ll get more out of it if I put more into it as time passes.
Also, this is the first time (as far as I can remember) that I’ve ever played in a game that was relying on pre-published adventure path modules. I’ve played adaptations and hacks of modules before, but Andrew plans to follow this one pretty closely. And here’s where I need to be polite and careful and respectful.
The thing is … last week before the game I tweeted something about going to play D&D in order to make new friends and I wrote that I hoped to keep my ‘inner hippie-jackass’ in check because I didn’t want to futz with things before even giving them a chance. Andrew wrote back to me on Facebook that he WANTED me to bring the hippie-jackass along to play. He repeated that to me Monday night while we were at the table preparing to play. So what I said to him was this:
“See, I don’t think you realize what I mean by letting my hippie-rpg flag fly at this table. It means that if we haven’t kicked this setting in the teeth so hard that by the third session you’ve totally thrown that module out the window and latched onto a plot that is born out of our choices and our play in the first couple sessions, then I’ve failed.”
And he said, “Oh, well yeah, I’d rather you not do that.”
And I don’t plan to. But I now realize I need to make some adjustments that go further than just keeping my hippie-player in check.
See, I went ahead and created the type of character I tend toward – a swashbuckling rogue with high charisma, weapon finesse and a rapier – and then tried to play him like I’d play him in a shared-narrative conflict-resolution type game. So when my character is seated on a podium during the dedication of the town’s new temple and goblins attack the town – I socket into what’s interesting for me and decide I left my rapier in my room because this is a formal occasion and so I start wailing on goblins with the wooden chair upon which I had been sitting – focusing on goblins who were attacking children in the crowd. I jumped off the podium, and beat on a goblin with my chair. I had the feat that negates penalties for improvised weapons, so no prob there, but I had to make the jump check first. Then something happened where the chair got broken into two pieces – okay, fine, now I’ve got a chair leg in each hand – but WHOA, now it’s two-handed fighting penalty time, and if I want to do anything cinematic like feinting or luring goblins in with a false sense of security, I’ve gotta do a Bluff check … etc.
it was excruciating for me and probably frustrating for the others as I had to make constant jump/climb/grapple/disarm/bluff rolls just to have my guy do interesting things beyond just taking my sword and sticking the pointy end in the other man. Granted, once it was all done the guys mentioned it was cool, but I’ve been through this and I know that over time the cool factor wears off and we’re still left with having to do 3 extra rolls just to try something cinematic, and having a really good chance of screwing it up until we reach about 5th level. I decided the rogue (my kind of rogue, anyway) was simply not the right fit for this group in this game.
So I’ve decided to ditch the rogue character and make a plain fighter, and play him with a mind toward simplicity. This game isn’t going to let me plug into my cinematic character socket, so I’ll concentrate on my social socket instead and try to help set up cool stuff for the other players to hook into. Playing it safe and a little closer to the vest, so to speak, at least until we all know one another and one anothers’ styles better.
Eventually I think I’ll get a D&D mindset back in place and become more aware of how to avoid tripping over the rules. Until then, I’ve got new friends to get to know and a whole lot of miniatures to lug around that’ve been sitting in my closet unused for the last 2-3 years.
You know, it’s so good that you all squared away the hippie-jackass thing beforehand. Whew!
I’m glad you liked it enough to play it again. It’s not that that character concept can’t be done in d20, it’s that it takes some levels to get there. In that respect, you were playing the wrong game there.
Remember to play to the game’s strengths and enjoy yourself above all.
The really sad thing is that I really enjoy this game, and now you’ve done it more than me. *sigh*
Daniel M. Perez, The Gamer Traveler´s last blog ..Travel Bloggers Exchange 2010 in NYC
I am super glad that you enjoyed the guys, I did too since I’m just getting to know them as well. I see that you are not overwhelmed with the setting. For me the setting is pretty generic DND so that anything can happen. What I really like is the plot of the AP, I think it has some neat villains and some great Role Play opportunities that we haven’t gotten to yet. Lucas told me tonight that he really liked the way you chose to use your chair to beat on the goblins. It inspired him to play a little differently then he normally does (ie he bull rushed the dog instead of just attacking). I respect that you like to throw the module out the window and appreciate that you will keep that in check so that we can explore the greater story that the AP offers. However there is a lot of chances to expand on and deviate from the books as written which is why I thought you would enjoy it. You have already added a new twist to the story with putting the blood mark on the dead bodies. I loved that and plan to incorporate that into the story. As for your character, as a DM I want you to play what is going to make you happy. I like the rouge supplanted in the other temples ranks trying to make mischief. It allows for a lot of extra story unrelated to the main AP and I LOVE that opportunity to create situations and encounters that are specific to that end. If you are unhappy with the way the character turned out and want to start over I get that but PLEASE don’t change it over trying to make something that fits the party (or the group )better. He (and you) already fit fine. Together we can expand on his subterfuge and invoke that aspect into the overall story more. I am worried I am letting you down as the DM and I want VERY MUCH to blend your narrative style to the traditional d20 game. I also hope that in a few weeks we will be able to break out Spirit of the Century or one of the other games you have talked about that use that style of play. Something to do between sections of the AP to give me a break and a chance to be the Player.
Andrew, there is nothing wrong here that is your fault – you’re not letting me down as a GM – in fact I don’t feel let down by anything, not you, not Pathfinder, not the group. No way.
My comments about being underwhelmed by Pathfinder don’t mean that I dislike it – it’s just a more vanilla fantasy setting than I thought it was from the buzz I’d heard about it. But now I realize the vanillaness of the setting is to our advantage, like you said. It makes it possible for us to put our own stamp on it. And I have no doubt interesting stuff is coming down the road.
So everything’s gonna be fine. This was me failing to recognize that the character I was trying to play right out of the gate was not very compatible with how d20 is set up – it’s like Daniel said, such a character is possible in d20 but you have to wait a few levels to get it flowing. I think I’ve been bitten because I forgot what it is like to play a 1st-level character in a d20 game. It’s been several years. I was overlooking the expected process of advancement and trying to act like an experienced swashbuckling badass right out of the box. But I also need to realize that even with a high-level character, I’m not the type of player who has the patience to roll for a jump and then a grapple and then a disarm just to narrate through a cinematic maneuver. But those are the rules and that’s cool with me, I just need to make a guy that flows better with the rules. Obviously it’s perfectly possible to play a rogue within those rules – it’s one of the core classes. But the disconnect comes when I try to inject some freeform cinematics/swashbuclking into a situation (which is my natural way of playing a rogue) but have to roll several rolls to do it. Again, nothing wrong with that in big-picture terms, but for me it kills the pacing. That’s really where the issue is, come to think of it – there’s a disconnect between the FEEL of how I like to play a rogue and the pacing inherent in d20′s task-resolution. So a Mick-style rogue guy is just not the character I need to be playing in my first foray back to D&D.The first few times we play D&D together I ought to ease in and not try to pour my swashbuckly freeform stuff into a system that isn’t set up for it.
Trust me – I should make a fighter and play him fairly straight up. I can adjust my pacing and cinematic expectations with a fighter much more easily than with a rogue. It’s a mental shift I guess. But anyhow we should spend some time getting to know one another as a group, gelling and building a rapport. Then we can start to have conversations about different styles of play. But right now we need to just have fun and play to the game’s strengths, as Daniel suggests. I actually have an itch to scratch because it’s been a long time since I’ve played in a detailed task-resolution system with miniature-based tactical combat and that IS d20′s strength and it also seems to be the way you guys are used to playing, so it’s a perfect opportunity for that. But in that sort of situation a straight-up fighter is more my style and speed. I’ll be able to focus on reintroducing myself to the system and you guys will be able to focus on the stuff you enjoy, and we’ll all be able to have more fun more smoothly and ease into whatever new things we might try down the road.
Oh, for what it’s worth, here’s an example of some of the little obstacles we need to navigate around – the term “AP”. When the folks I’ve been playing with over the past couple of years use the term, we mean “actual play” i.e. an account of what happens at the table during a session, not just in the fiction but also how the game progressed in the meta sense. When you use it, you mean “adventure path”. This is a small thing, but it’s a great example of the kind of thing that has been buggering up conversations between different types of roleplayers for years. And the only way I’ve ever experienced success in growing through those kinds of obstacles is to take time and gradually gel, rather than having the hippie guy come in and dump a load of overt story-gaminess all over the table.
But I’m really glad you agreed to port your responses over to this post’s comments, Andrew, because reading through these kinds of conversations (and listening to them on podcasts) was a big factor in helping me learn how to figure out and articulate what I want out of play, what my sockets are, etc. NOTHING is better than actually playing and experiencing games, but reading and participating in conversations about them is a close second for me.
Mick,
I posted when I first read this but I guess it didn’t stick.
Let’s try again.
Any reason why you decided to have left your rapier in your room? It seems like your frustration with the combat stems from that and the decision didn’t make a whole lotta sense to me.
Just wondering…
I left the rapier in the room because I thought it would be more fun to fight with a chair – and in many senses, it was, but I forgot about all of the extra rolling that comes with attempting cinematic maneuvers in D&D.
The fact is, even if I had my rapier, I’d still have tried to be flashy and cinematic with it, because that’s what I socket into when playing a rogue. I would have avoided certain attack penalties with my rapier, but I’d still have had to roll all those bluffs and grapples and disarms in order to be flashy.
So yes, what it comes down to sounds kinda childish and selfish. I had less fun because the system isn’t set up to let me be as much of a showoff as I wanted to be, at least not without hindering the pace and flow.
Thus I’ve decided that rather than make THAT character be less showy, I’d make a new character where my natural inclination as a player would be to act with a more utilitarian attitude. I’m focusing on a different socket and a new character works best for the new socket.
Mick,
I understand what you mean. When I started with the guys out in L.A., we were playing this very path, and to say my D&D rules knowledge was rusty would have been charitable. I found the mechanics extremely frustrating at times. Like you, I was playing a swashbuckling rogue, and I was never quite able to pull it off because of this roll or that roll. The rolls got in the way of a fun, cinematic style, and I always felt like the game suffered for it.
Strict adherence to the rules might be the right thing for some groups. For my money, I’d rather have the interesting story. Like you, I wound up ditching my flashy character for something more based on stats than style, and I never liked the second character as much.
As the DM I think the choice to leave the rapier in the room was very fitting and in good Role Play. The character was a guest at the dedication of a new church and in my opinion not the place a character should be showing off hardware. Despite the suggestion of another player to call it a “ceremonial” weapon as a loophole to carry it Mick choose on his own to handicap his character. I would have allowed it either way but Mick’s choice became the norm and I decided all the priests were unarmed upon the goblin attack. I’d like to point out that the rouge was pretty flashy and was able to impale a goblin in the gullet with the broken chair leg. That said the new character is a great addition to the story. I sense after only one session at the table that Mick is more involved with this characters story than with the first. The story ties he has suggested and created for his character and others are helping make the game a good story based event and less of a roll dice collect XP slash’em up. I applaud Mick for acknowledging his discomfort for the rules system and finding a way to play a character that he will enjoy playing in the system and I hope as a gaming group we will develop a play style that is about the look and not the numbers. As a DM the enjoyment of the players and the development of the story are most important. I encourage Mick to find ways to use this new character in unusual ways as well and not let the dice rolls prevent him from trying creative game play.